The great war reporter Claud Cockburn, who advised journalists to never believe anything until it has been officially denied, must be turning in his grave at the performance of some in reporting the alleged planned terror attack on a number of planes travelling between Britain and America.

The supine parroting of official truths provided by the police, the intelligence services and government has once again been to the fore among print and broadcast media. It was as though weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the attempted cover up of the Jean Charles De Menezes shooting in Stockwell and the raid by 250 police on a house in Forest Gate never happened. The historic memory of many reporters' minds seems once again to have been wiped clean in the face of officialdom.

As with past events the Islamophobic attitudes of many reporters were immediately on display showing a breathtaking ignorance of the Muslim community. Again, as at Forest Gate, reporters following up the story were seen suggesting that a person who had grown a beard or suddenly took a deeper interest in the Muslim religion was immediately suspect on that basis. The same reporters will not doubt be surprised when they then go to Muslim areas in the future and find they get a less than friendly welcome.

This is not to take anything away from the seriousness of the situation. This may well have been a serious plot to bring down planes and destroy life but more than four days on we are still waiting for some evidence to be produced. The responsible journalist in whatever medium they happen to be working has a duty to exercise a little scepticism. Yes, the events that closed down the airports had to be reported. The most readily available information no doubt came from the authorities but surely, a little reserve, the occasional question as to authenticity would not have been out of place.

It took two days before the word allegedly became more commonplace relating to events amongst some print and broadcast media outlets. Maybe less of a focus on what might have been, fuelled by a plethora of experts drawn from who knows where.

There were honourable exceptions of course, such as the Guardian and BBC2's Newsnight programme. The latter carried a good questioning piece by Michael Crick followed by a studio discussion on the reliability of the story involving Andrew Gilligan and Michael Gove.

It is the job of the journalist to question and probe whatever the story and whatever the source. It is not his or her job to act as a cipher for official information. By parroting exactly what they are told by official sources journalists prostitute the profession. By reporting such things in an objective way they add credibility to something that has not yet been established as credible.

By all means let those in the police and military stand up in their uniforms and give the public the official line on what is going on. The public will not be fooled, they will know where the story has come from and give it the due weight it deserves. But it is not the journalist's role to play this role. The journalist should be constantly asking where is the evidence, where is the proof? Why are all these people being picked up? Is it coincidental that this event knocked the ongoing slaughter in Lebanon off the top of the news agenda for a couple of days?

It can only be hoped that some lesson have been learned and that in the future a little more questioning will emanate from journalists when such stories break. The story maybe true but it is not the journalists' job to give such an overly subjective view in favour of those in authority.

Cockburn's oft quoted phrase of believing nothing before it is officially denied is as relevant today as it was when he first said it all those years ago.